Skip to content


Bishen Perkash NaraIn Singh Vs. Munni Ram Chowdhry - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR24Cal878
AppellantBishen Perkash NaraIn Singh
RespondentMunni Ram Chowdhry
Cases Referred and Baroda Churn Ghose v. Gobind Proshad Ternary I.L.R.
Excerpt:
appeal - order granting review of judgment--civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 629--grounds of appeal. - .....of appeal against the order granting the application, or may be taken in any appeal against the final decree. that would show that in either case, that is, either in an appeal against the order or in an appeal from the final decree only, an appeal will lie on those particular grounds and no others. there are two authorities of this court in har nandan sahai v. behari singh i.l.r. 22 cal. 3 and baroda churn ghose v. gobind proshad ternary i.l.r. 22 cal. 984 which show that the grounds which have been urged in this appeal are not grounds which can be taken in an appeal from the final decree. the same reasoning will apply to the present case. moreover, both these decisions of this court approve of the decision of the bombay high court to which we have referred, and which is expressly in.....
Judgment:

Trevelyan and Stevens, JJ.

1. This is an appeal from an order admitting a review. The eases in which such an appeal is possible are mentioned in Section 629 of the Civil Procedure Code, and there is the express authority of the Bombay High Court in the case of the Bombay and Persia Steam Navigation Company v. S. S. 'Zuari' I.L.R. 12 Bom. 171 that an appeal will not directly lie except on the grounds mentioned in that section. Section 629 of the Civil Procedure Code says that the objection may be made either by way of appeal against the order granting the application, or may be taken in any appeal against the final decree. That would show that in either case, that is, either in an appeal against the order or in an appeal from the final decree only, an appeal will lie on those particular grounds and no others. There are two authorities of this Court in Har Nandan Sahai v. Behari Singh I.L.R. 22 Cal. 3 and Baroda Churn Ghose v. Gobind Proshad Ternary I.L.R. 22 Cal. 984 which show that the grounds which have been urged in this appeal are not grounds which can be taken in an appeal from the final decree. The same reasoning will apply to the present case. Moreover, both these decisions of this Court approve of the decision of the Bombay High Court to which we have referred, and which is expressly in point. The grounds urged by the learned Vakil for the appellant are not grounds under Section 629, and therefore it is not competent for us to consider them.

2. For this reason we dismiss this appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //